> ...
>
>Yes, you're right. I was aiming for something that allowed for cursive
>joining, but prevented ligation, ...
>
>I was hoping to avoid such a complex condition, and have a simpler
>replacement policy. Unfortunately, ZW(N)J are overloaded for cursive
>joining
>and ligation behaviour, CGJ does not affect joining/ligation, neither
>does
>WJ (according to TUS 4, which need not be the same as current practice,
>as
>they may not be "supported").
>
>
>
This does seem to be the problem. But I note from Table 8-3 that "most
format control characters (General Category Cf) are transparent to
cursive joining", but also that most of them other than ZWJ inhibit
ligation. So surely the answer is to choose a Cf character other than
ZWJ which has no other unsuitable characteristics. I'm not sure if there
is one, but I would think that if there is not a control character which
inhibits ligation but is transparent to cursive joining, there ought to
be such a character.